In a move that has sparked widespread backlash, Disney recently decided to backtrack on its attempt to push a wrongful death lawsuit into arbitration.
This case, which has captured public attention and fueled outrage, revolves around the tragic death of Dr. Kanakporn Tangsuan, who suffered a fatal allergic reaction while dining at a Disney Springs restaurant in Florida. Her husband, Jeffrey Piccolo, is suing Disney, claiming that despite their repeated assurances that her food was allergen-free, Tangsuan went into anaphylactic shock and died, even after being administered an EpiPen.
Initially, Disney’s legal team attempted to sidestep the lawsuit by invoking an arbitration clause buried in the fine print of a Disney+ subscription agreement that Piccolo had signed. The clause stated that any disputes with Disney or its affiliates, including complaints related to various services and content, would be resolved through arbitration rather than through the courts. This move was met with disbelief and anger, with Piccolo’s lawyer calling the argument “surreal.”
The story quickly gained traction on social media, painting Disney in an extremely negative light. The idea that the company would use a Disney+ subscription agreement to avoid a wrongful death lawsuit struck many as cold and calculating, especially given the heartbreaking circumstances of the case. The public outcry was intense, and it appears that Disney felt the heat.
In a statement released late Monday, Disney announced that it would no longer pursue arbitration in this case. Josh D’Amaro, chairman of Disney Experiences, said, “At Disney, we strive to put humanity above all other considerations.”
While the company didn’t explicitly say that public pressure influenced its decision, it’s hard to imagine that the backlash didn’t play a significant role.
This reversal, however, may be too little, too late for Disney to repair its image. The fact that the company even considered using a technicality in a streaming service agreement to avoid facing a wrongful death lawsuit has left a sour taste in the mouths of many.
It suggests that Disney’s initial response was more about protecting its bottom line than addressing the tragedy with the empathy and responsibility one might expect from a company that prides itself on family-friendly values.
Now that the lawsuit will proceed in court, all eyes will be on how Disney handles the situation moving forward. It’s difficult to see how the company can fully redeem itself in the eyes of the public after this debacle. The damage has been done, and it’s likely that this case will continue to haunt Disney’s reputation.
